under the some relative of the european union. there are 28 countries, hundreds of millions of people, a big, robust market. it is our biggest trading block. in some ways the u.s. economy and european economy are already so tied together. on any given morning you wake up and you have got your cup of getlé's hot chocolate, you in your volkswagen, you drive to work, maybe you haven't no key a phone that you use to call the office. there are so many european products in our lives and in europe there is just a tremendous number of american products. you would think that the relationship would be very close. but it is not that close. it could be closer. there are still lots of -- rsists, -- terrorists -- terrorists -- tariffs. the white house and the european union want to create this new

the name is kind of stupid, it is a trade and investment pact, trade and investment partnership. we can really merge into this sort of transatlantic giant large single economic space where we can do a great deal of business with each other. are -- who knows, but the white house says that they could create air t million createthin the trait -- 13 million jobs within the trading zone for economic activity. what we were learning about this summer is that there is still a long way to go in putting together this trade packet. there are a lot of concerns in europe about companies coming in with our privacy standards.

when you look at the history of germany -- with not seas, with half the country being occupied or whatever you want to call it with communists in east germany, there are a lot of concerns about invasive government police , corporations, those kinds of things prying into your private life. they have very different feelings about privacy. they don't want people snooping into their lives. a lot of people in europe feel like the privacy standards that our companies observe are too low for their tastes. and then there are a lot of concerns about agricultural products. genetically modified things are a concern. there are a lot of reasons they are worried on their side. and of course a lot of americans are worried about increased competition from everything from bmw to like whatever, they don't want to have even more imports. there are concerns on both sides of the atlantic and it is a very complicated negotiation, but

they are going to regroup again. another round of talks is coming later this month. on but asoldiering real problem for the united states is that congress has not reauthorized fast track authority for president obama. fast track would help to facilitate -- it is a special power given to the president to speed along these kinds of trade them. to simplify they have expired and congress has not renewed them. until the president has fast-track authority renewed, it will be tough to complete this deal. >> mike, texas, independent line. >> thank you for c-span and npr -- caller: thank you for c-span and npr. the corporate structure is making more profits than ever. ceos are getting huge bonuses and salaries. they sent all the jobs overseas and have replaced us with robot, and yet they say that government

cannot create jobs. these guys got there on the infrastructure that we all made, why don't we want the government to help replace it? those are, again, political discussions, but certainly the things he raises about robots and imports -- the thing that is nice about studying another economy from a couple of week -- for couple of weeks is that you have the opportunity to see many things. we got to tour of volkswagen plant in germany. it is just amazing. just watching how the technology involved these days -- the chassis comes by, the body, a robot puts the body on the chassis, things come up and they zip it together. you have a bunch of parts and the next thing you know it looks like a car. humansw, there are no involved. the idea that the guys there with a wrench twisting it, that

just does not happen in a modern factory. so, boy, i don't know how you change that. in the particular factory that we saw they said that 70% of the cars they make go to china. is a very global market where robots in germany are making cars they can be shipped to -- it is very tough to see how no matter what you might want to think about it lyrically or say -- it is happening, like it or not. that is what the factories look like now. people monitoring things. there are still some workers on the factory floor but so much of it is done by robotics now. that is a trend that is very hard to say that hard to see corporations saying -- wait, we are going to stop using these technologies and go back to a bunch of guys with wrenches in their pockets. it's not how the global economy is moving right now.

>> greg, missouri, republican line. caller: i was calling to speak with marilyn. doesn't npr receive government money for your radio station? about obama'shat policies? he has done nothing but lied to the american people. he continues to live to the american people. and he expects us to believe what he is doing? there is no way. >> public radio as an overall system does get some government funding. but it does not particularly go to npr. we create content here in washington. our member stations use it. the public funding tends to go to the member stations, but it is really complicated. it is a complex subject and i don't want to get into the details, it is above my pay level to understand where all the funding goes. but the general idea is that our

member stations, those public stations in your community are the primary recipients of public funding. all one, big, giant public radio system along with public television. terms of what is a lie or not? that is, you know, something that everybody needs to look at through a political prism. it is not an economic argument, that is a political debate. host: kathy, florida, thanks for waiting on the independent line. hi.er: i was wondering what marilyn thinks the possible impact of the iraqi oil situation over there -- how might that impact this country in the future? that we are so dependent on foreign oil. the 1970 three crisis. i am not a well-educated person, but it would appear that our

country has not learned a lot since that time. thank you for the question. there is a lot of concern all over the world about energy conservation right now, things are very unstable in the middle east. there are all sorts of problems now with israel and this concern around events involving, us, there is instability there. obviously syria, iraqi, those are places where it is helping to push oil prices higher because there is such instability in that region that provides the world was such a great degree of oil. on top of that the big issue is ukraine. ofsia is a major producer energy, gas, and oil. pipelines run through the ukraine. there is a lot of political and military turmoil, shall we say, in ukraine. certainly a big issue,

russia wants to control the territory, that is whether pipelines go from russian sources of energy to the markets that they supply in europe. so, with both russian energy and its questionable state and ,iddle eastern turmoil, this is as they call it, a risk premium for oil prices. it makes everything more expensive. one counterweight that we heard a great deal about in europe was the discussion of the united states the coming such an enormous producer of oil and gas, there has been technical lot -- technological changes there, the process called fracking has greatly increased our out what of oil and gas. americanlk about saudi , that we have become this huge counterweight to russia and the middle east. whether or not, you know, i think it is unquestionable that the oil prices and gas prices

would be much higher right now if it were not for the tremendous increase in the american output to counteract these concerns in russia and in the middle east. americans are also just using less fuel. people switching to hybrids, just higher levels of gas mileage that we are getting out of our cars, we really have slowed down dependency on gas. even looking at it from a consumer point of view, gasoline prices are pretty high this summer. you are looking at around four dollars per gallon depending on the part of the country you are in, but it is high for the fourth of july. but people don't take it as hard now with cars getting 30 miles to the gallon when they use to get 10 to 12 miles to the gallon. areeven though gas prices high, the usage of the gasoline is not as intense, so it helps

the consumer in that regard. >> davis, crockett, texas, independent line, go ahead, please. >> a question on infrastructure. everyone always talks about infrastructure, roads and bridges and stuff -- no one ever discusses power plants. you know, coal burning power plants. nuclear power plants. host: thanks, dave. that isan.org --guest: actually a big issue, there is a lot more natural gas being produced now. a lot of coal fire plants are being shut down and nuclear power plants that were built in the 1970's are now being seen as obsolete and potentially fukushima,ever since the catastrophe in japan people have increased concerns about some of the older nuclear power plants. so, some of these power plants are being moved in the direction of being out of commission.

but new things -- natural gas can be used to fire generators to create electricity. there is sort of a giant move going on in the economy that in general tends to be away from coal and in the direction of natural gas turbines that produce power. so, there is a big shift going on. >> one more caller --host: one more caller. rich, virginia. republican line. caller: two big points, c-span, i would love for you guys -- i know sometimes you take comments from guests, but i would love for you to do a show on the stock market. i really don't understand why it is so high with the economy sputtering and maybe going backwards. the other question that i had was -- i am in the construction business. just about everything that we use now is made in china. many millions how

of cars that general motors is recalling -- what impact does have inof bad products terms of a drag on the economy? host: thanks, rich. profits haveate been very strong and again, it is back to this idea of a globalized market. just taking the example of that vw plant in germany. if they have got a lot of capital invested in new equipment, robots, the latest things, and they have the technological capability to ship is a verychina, that different kind of model for how the whole world is working. companies can invest a lot of their own money and capital to invest in these new kinds of equipment. they become very profitable and can sell things to wealthy people in other parts of the country, but it does cut out the average worker where you don't

have just the run-of-the-mill person standing on the line making a run-of-the-mill income. so, there are many people, many economists, who are very concerned about this mismatch. that you can only do this for so long, but markets make a lot of money with corporate profits being very strong and you eventually get active the demand side where you hold everything you can and sell it to rich people and you need the middle power.o have more buying that is where you need people to have jobs and that is sort of the big question. can we keep going like this with financial markets looming and the job market still remaining subdued with wage growth slow? is that the kind of mismatch that leads to another coming recession? that is really something that we cannot fully predict, but certainly many are very concerned about it. host: live on c-span 2,

the under secretary for education will be the featured speaker on improving the nation's schools. education commission of the states is the host of the event. coming up in 15 minutes, the examination of the increasing violence in iraq and the kurdish regional government. that gets underway at 12:30 eastern. we will have live coverage. also coming up tonight, a look at the legal marijuana industry and efforts to expand recreational pot use around the country. we will show you the first major business conference held in denver. here is a quick look. is one of these things that can kind of galvanize people. if you are here mainly for money, that is great. i think a lot of people come to this industry because of the

opportunity, the economic opportunity, but that is not what keeps them. what keeps them are the people, the passion, the change we are making, the pioneering spirit we are building. and because you know this is different. your businesses are not like other businesses. i think it is going to be an interesting ride as we look at our different motivations for being involved in the sector. we learned that if you want something done in this world, you have got to figure out how to make it profitable. hippies keep being right. they were right about renewable energy. we were right about organic foods. we are right about cannabis. you look at renewable energy

under organic foods, these are movements that started because people cared about something. the cared about the environment. they cared about the health of farms and the land and about what we put in our bodies. small and out really within activist sort of flavor. once they figured out how to have profitable business models around those ideas, boom. now, organic foods are everywhere. is growing bygy leaps and leaps and leaps and bounds. and i think that is what the cannabis industry is doing for freedom. cannabis, tonight here on c-span starting at 8:00 eastern. coming up next, a look at the 2016 presidential landscape from today's "washington journal." --will show you as much as

of this as we can. before our live coverage about the violence of iraq -- in iraq. time for our regular wednesday feature spotlight on magazines. journal," "national not just because of the redesign that they went through, that for look at 2016. richard just, editor there, is with us. welcome. you wrote that the opening page -- or your editors did, that sometimes paying attention to the hidden narrative or the overlooked character is the thing. what did they mean by that? guest: we have a wonderful website that tells people what is going on on a daily basis, but in the current media climate it can be easy to get wrapped up in what is going on in the minute by minute hourly basis. what a print magazine is for, we feel, is to step act, look at the characters and underlying themes, things that may not be

as apparent in the daily news cycle. what we wanted to do was a deeper dive into the characters of 2016, some of the candidates and their advisors are, as well as their histories, looking at where they come down on the issues and what their historical patterns have been. >> one of the major feature stories of the magazine takes a look at hillary clinton, the unified. hillary. you did not write it, but what is the thrust? isst: peter's basic thesis that her greatest strength and weakness are the same thing. she has an incredible capacity for putting her head down and executing a well-defined plan. incredibly hard-working, incredibly smart. when she knows what she is doing she is incredibly hard to beat and a talented at moving ahead and executing a plan. peter also identifies in her .ast and inability to pivot and inability to always realize where the political world is

headed and adjust accordingly. he draws on two examples to make the case. the first is the debacle with health care and 94. it was really clear, well into that process, that what the clintons were proposing was not working. folks inside of the white house were telling hillary and bill that they needed to adjust, that they may be needed to settle for half a loaf and she was very dug in on what she wanted to do with it. might be example that even more compelling is her stance on foreign policies, particularly a rack leading up to 2008. she dusted not grasp that the center of the democratic party had moved to the left -- he just did not grasp at the center of the democratic party had moved to the left. rip -- not speak to that that liberal base. that was how obama was able to out maneuver her and get to the point passed her on policy long past the point where she should have been pivoting to the left,

she was still stuck in very hawkish rhetoric. president hillary would be someone great at executing a plan but maybe would not he has nimble as, ideally, you would want a politician. host: numbers to call -- the 2016 presidential landscape is the topic with richard just, of "national journal." you talk about hillary, hillary clinton. you are also taking a look at scott walker. guest: absolutely. walker is an interesting case, there is a huge division in the republican party between the tea party grassroots base and the tea party establishment of the party. whoever wins the nomination is going to be someone who has to speak to both constituents. looking at the republican field it divides into folks who are on one side of that or the other. one reason we focused on scott

walker is because we felt he was a candidate to check both boxes. someone an enormously popular with the tea party and libertarian roots of the party, seen as being a truly conservative figure, but i'm one who is also acceptable to the establishments, the elites, the business folks who have a lot of influence in the party. they were obviously impressed with him taking on unions in wisconsin and emerging as the winner. he also has a sort of very calm, stayed, demeanor on the outside. someone like ted cruz, who is very pugnacious, conservative, which the base of the party loves, he communicates that pug nations this in a way that maybe is not always ideal for a presidential hopeful. someone who has conservatism underneath that the base looks for and has a mild manner and likable demeanor. again, richard just of

"national journal," looking at this series of stories that you can find. florida, fort myers, up first. good morning. when i was watching the primaries, hillary clinton had a breakdown and said -- you people just don't get how important this is. media, they have kind of circled camps around obama. the way that i heard that in her voice, the stress that i heard -- he is right, people just did not get putting a neophyte in there. as a republican, had she won that primary i definitely would not have voted for john mccain, he just seemed like the lesser of two evils. guest: you mentioned the word neophyte. which is interesting. one of the things that a hillary or a jeb bush brings to the

table is a lot of experience, which can kind of play as a positive or negative in american politics. i think that often americans don't like dynasties. in their gut they find them to be un-american in certain ways. on the other hand, obviously a dynasty brings with it experience, which can be valuable in washington. one of the really interesting facts that he notes in the piece, something i did not know before i edited it, in 1993 when bill clinton arrived in the white house, not a single one of his domestic i'll see staffers had white house experience. that speaks to just how much of thatphyte administration was. if hillary is the president in 2016, if someone like jeb bush wins on the republican side, that kind of situation will bring a lot of experienced folks into the white house and the experience that they personally have in politics, changing the kind of shape of the potential administration. takes a look at

the joe biden dynasty, the article. connecticut, good morning. good morning,r: yes. i have a couple of things to say about the hillary situation. hillarycerned that approaches politics with the manner. tuned if you say it this way that it does not work or if you say at the opposite way or some other way, i don't it the sense of fidelity from her. in particular i am concerned that she is in the back pocket of the zionist who hang around the white house. guest: well, i would obviously disagree with the notion that she is in the back pocket of zionist. obviouslyat hillary sort of moved has

around on the political spectrum, there is no question that she came out of the 1990's struggling with the perception that she was very liberal. i don't know that that perception was ever really true. veryhe said about very, concretely in her years in the senate and the early 2000's trying to change that image of herself, trying to move to the center and make it clear that she was not a left winger, but a centrist democrat. i think that that was something that actually got her into trouble, where she had moved too far to the center for the days -- base of the democratic party, particularly on issues of foreign policy. it will be interesting to see how she positions herself in 2016. host: huntsville, alabama, michael. i am in elizabeth warren

democrat. there is something more intriguing about rand paul, who has been talking about populist issues around the prison situation. if he gets serious and stays with that, he could peel lost some minority votes. but his biggest problem is that -- aynn randn problem. question thats no the folks who identify with the occupy movement are going to want a spokesperson on the stage. i think a lot of folks from the war in camp would like that person to be her. she has basically come out and said that she is not going to run. it just doesn't look likely. i think the likely spokesperson

for that wing of the party will be bernie sanders, from vermont. the big profile in this issue looks at what kind of spokesperson he would the on the left on the primary stage. obviously, sanders would not say this but he would not be running to win the presidency, he would be running to move hillary clinton to the left and force the democratic party to address some of the economic issues that are important to this segment of the electorate. it will be interesting to see how he does as a spokesman for that wing of the party. there is no question that there is an overlap between that wing of the party and rand paul republicans. is entitled "ile am right, everyone else is wrong. clear about that"? good morning. caller: good morning. does he think that anyone could come forth as a nationalist candidate for the citizens of the united states to get us out of these horrible trade

, maybe with some things like a constitution party that would include some government programs like social security for our own citizens. i really think that the time is right for this. sounds like you are speaking to the libertarian wing of the republican party. that would be the rand paul ring -- wing. there is a real decision -- division within the party on the issues that you are speaking to around things like rand paul, who want america to retreat from the world. who want a very limited, if any involvement, by america and world affairs. and then there is the more traditional neoconservative party that holds them up over the recent years. it will be very interesting to see how that division plays out. is fair to say that the republican party is as divided on foreign policy as any

political party has been in recent -- recent memory. these are just diametrically opposed worldviews and it will be interesting to see where the passions of the base of the party are during primary season, particularly on those issues. host: a poll on democrats for the nominee -- [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> we will leave this washington journal section. discussion onive the increasing violence in iraq and the role of the kurdish regional government that is just getting underway. >> i am the director of the institute. i am delighted to host today's event, to welcome all of you to this very special gathering. -- i see that the audio is a little bit low. we can raise the volume for the

back. let me try that again. is that better? right. begin byst first asking everyone if you could please turn your cell phones to mute. today's event is being live streamed out. since our last major event with guests from curtis dan -- n was our most highly watched live streamed event in event towe expect this break that record. [laughter] perhaps there is a presidential directive in kurdistan.

we are here today because the topic of the future of kurdistan is at the top of the global agenda. that one of the key issues is swirling around the entire set of issues triggered by recent events in iraq. of course, the issues regarding the kurdish people are not new. subtext toeen a politics in the middle east for many years. america's connection to the is not newurdistan either. it is a story that has its ups and downs over the years. government and ,he government in northern iraq the government and the kurdish regional government, is now

ofering a new era cooperation and perhaps even alliance. we will hear more about that from our guests. --o want to it knowledge acknowledge the guidance here at the institute of all things iraq related offered by ambassador jim jeffrey. jimre delighted to have offering his wisdom on all things connected to this issue. today's program will be moderated by my colleague dr. david pollack. david is a man of many hats. one of those hats is a kurdish he spent -- hat, where quite a bit of time not just mastering the language, but understanding the intricacies of kurdish politics.

with that, i am delighted to be able to turn the podium over to him to introduce our very special guests. dave. >> thank you very much. thank all of you for attending. veryially, thanks to our distinguished guests who are coming here at a critical moment in the history of the region, as the whole of iraq and curtis dan --kurdistan and the kurdish people. in my be extremely brief remarks. i want to begin with a shameless writeor the blog that i here at the institute. we have special pieces about the

situation in iraq. articles and the blog generally to your attention. we would be delighted to have kurdistanrs from writing for us and we have had a number of kurdish contributors over the past number of years. it is bilingual. it is in arabic and english. someday, as your president said when he was here, someday perhaps, we will perhaps at a kurdish language version of the blog. >> it is time. >> it is time. i know. [laughter] rob was very generous and saying i had mounted -- mastered the kurdish language. that was generous. we have the national security

advisor to president barzani of the kurdistan regional government. chief of staff. we have the head of the external relations department of the herd regionalkurdistan government. they are coming to us from a meeting with secretary kerry following on the heels of secretary kerry's recent visit to the capital of the kurdistan region in the wake of the current critical developments. i look forward very much to hearing what they have to say their ownsituation in region and in the region as a whole and about u.s. policy toward these developments. thatve an understanding

primarilyll speak to internal developments and fa willuff up -- musta speak about external relations. they have both graciously agreed to speak very briefly, probably only about 10 minutes each, and they even asked me to stop them to,hey have to -- if i have so that all of you will have more than enough time for questions and comments and discussion. i'm very grateful to them. they have been gracious and to meative posts -- hosts on my roughly annual visits to kurdistan. with that, i will turn the floor over.

>> david, i would like to thank you. thank you very much for inviting us to be here on behalf of my colleague. it is really great and important to be with you. thank you for coming to this event. iraqnk the situation in and the change which happened the last 2-3 weeks in iraq invite all of us to think about the current situation and analyze it and also to think

about the development and the -- when ithe country am talking about country, i am talking about iraq, but also kurdistan. i have been asked to talk about the internal situation in iraq. usually, nowadays, i am talking about the current events in iraq, i am talking about pre-and event.sul before the events which started on the ninth of june, iraq was different. the 10th of june, we got a different country. what was before? had officially one country.

we had an army. active inists were various places, but they did not announce themselves. there was so-called disputed area and there were joint checkpoints in some areas between the iraqi army and kurdish forces. what happened after mosul is the following. we have got a new state. a new state was born. we have got a terrorist organization which became a state now. it was groups acting here and there, but now they announce it and they became a state. 80% of iraqi army has collapsed.

there were six divisions of the iraqi army around the mosul army. all of them collapsed. we are talking about six. armybelonged to the iraqi the royallonged to force. all weapons that they had are isil.ntrolled by they control the weapons and they control the area. representatives were representing the sunni political now,es in the parliament, most of them they do not have basis in these areas.

representing the sunni community, but they do not have bases in these area because these are under control of the islamic state. is different than before mosul event. we have got officially militias. when we are talking about militias, we are talking about units. they are officially active in baghdad and around baghdad. area, becauseuted of the lapse of the iraqi army -- collapse of the iraqi army, there are vacuums. , according torea

the iraqi constitution, is completely under the control of the kurdish forces. this is a new reality. we have got three states within one. three states with different systems. islamist and internationalist because they do not recognize the border. they are targeting baghdad, they are targeting mosques, they are targeting beirut. there targeting jordan and kuwait, for the time being. i think they will target kurdistan and other areas. that is their program, that is their plan. we have got kurdistan, which is secure, which believes in democracy, tries to build a democratic process, believes in

multiethnic society, believes in multireligious society, believes in human rights, believes in women's rights. this is next to a so-called islamic state. our border now is with an islamic state and not anymore with iraq. we have got a border of about 1050 kilometers with islamic kilometers,1050 only 15 kilometers is with iraq. there is a state between us and baghdad. then we have got nonfunctional government or a failure government in baghdad. you have the government in baghdad that is not functioning. you have got an islamic state that is against kurdistan and against baghdad. and you have got kurdistan.

this is a new reality. how are we going to deal with this? for the kurds, what are we going to do? the first target is to defend our borders. --defend the murderer of border of kurdistan. to defend kurdistan from any attack by islamic state's terrorist group. the second target is to protect our constitution -- population and to protect the population population, the muslims, the christians, because our society is multiethnic, multicultural, multireligious. we are protecting those people.

this is our second target. the third one is to help those refugees and displaced people who are coming by the thousands to our area. thousands of people are running from mosul. are comingf people to kurdistan. almost all christian. mosul, they are trying to reach kurdistan. they are leaving their area, leaving their home, coming to kurdistan. we are trying to help. limited.ity is syrian refugees, we have 250,000 refugees from syria in our area, then we are talking about one million people

displaced in our area. we now have got the population of the disputed area added to our population. we are talking around 7 million people. we are not responsible to take care of 7 million kurds and non-kurds in that area. some are refugees, summer displaced. this means managing the economics, managing the local government, but also managing the security. this is a new reality in kurdistan. there's also a new reality in baghdad that has to do with the new process, the new political process. are we going to give birth once again to a new political process in baghdad? is that possible? are we responsible to do that?

can we lead that because people abroad are asking us to lead that? because there is a lack of leadership in baghdad. if we lead the process, can we succeed? the last 10 years, we tried. we try to keep the energy of iraq. -- the unity of iraq. others were building unity -- destroying unity and democracy. we tried to tell everybody the solution for the country is to have a structure in iraq thomas of the sunnis can have their area, the she is can have their theirthe kurds can have area, and baghdad can be for all of us. they rejected that. instead of going in the direction of democracy, they were going in the democracy -- direction of dictatorship. instead of going in the direction of gradually

establishing and building a federal structure, they were going the direction of the dictatorship system. in the end, we ended up with three states and they are different from each other. process, rebuilding the new political process, we are going to be part of it. yesterday, the iraqi parliament tried to have the first meeting, they failed. next week, they will come together. next week, they will come together to choose the speaker of the parliament, the president of the country, and the prime minister of the country. of course, the new government, then. it seems yesterday, they did not reach an ingredient -- agreement. community, among

themselves, they did not reach an agreement about the speaker of the parliament. first, you must choose a speaker of the parliament. i hope that next week there will be an agreement about this. will alsoe kurds nominate somebody to be president of the country because that is the kurdish position. president of the country for the kurds and the prime minister is bloc.e shia when we are talking about the prime minister, we are talking about a new prime minister. there must be a new government. the policy has failed. government, the people now in power, they are responsible for the collapse of the army.

a big part of the country has been hijacked by terrorists. the question for the kurds, the future government of iraq, but also for neighboring countries, for the united states, how are we going to deal with this threat? it is a threat for kurdistan. it is a threat for baghdad. it is a threat for syria. it is a threat for jordan, for middle eastern countries, including kuwait. they are announcing that. how are we going to deal with this? it will be a threat for international peace if they will here.their power t they are busy establishing themselves in the area. they have weapons, they have money, they have ideology, they

have some international support. state, it doesc not belong to the area, it belongs to an international terrorist organization. it means working together with various countries so that they will be defeated. terrorists canhe start from iraq, from kurdistan, and baghdad. we are going to follow two paths. one path, helping the government to be established in baghdad. the other path is to establish ourselves, to have an independent economic life, to strengthen our forces.

to protect our area, to protect their people. these two paths will continue. this is our policy. we hope that people here in washington, that these two parts are not contradicting each other. at the end, the people of kurdistan has the right of self-determination and the right to decide about the future of ofdistan and the future kurdish people there. we hope we can reach that understanding here, but also reach that understanding in baghdad. this is our policy. this is one of the reasons why we're here, to explain the situation, to talk about the current situation, to talk about the new reality. iraq is not one iraq anymore. if you want to bring it together, then it must be a new

structure. a different structure than i was. you cannot bring them together while you have the islamic state between kurdistan and baghdad. thank you very much. [applause] was it 10 minutes? >> a little more than 10 minutes, but well worth it. maybe the gentleman, it is a pleasure to be back here. i would like to focus on the situation here today and what has happened on the ground and how do we communicate that message to the outside world? we believe in interacting with the outside world. we have suffered from isolation in the past and we want to communicate our message. as a result of isolation, sometimes we would be blamed and we would be accused of things that we have not done. tore are some who are trying

accuse the kurds of the failure for iraq. we're the ones who have only participated heavily for the health of iraq. there are people who are trying to cover their own failure by blaming the kurds and letting the kurds be the scapegoat. isolation to interaction, that has been one of the principles of the foreign policy. the open-door policy. second, we tried to benefit from the opportunity given to turn the confrontation that we had into cooperation. has been the strategy to have understanding with the regional powers and the international community. if we make any comparison with and the krg has done baghdad has done, we have been more successful in building

relationships with the international community at large and neighboring countries. although we have not been a state like iraq, but unfortunately they were not able to benefit from it. a new democratic experience, we have been able to benefit. there has been a clarity of mission and a clarity of vision. some of the problems that have happened in iraq, they go back to the constitution. not accepting the principles of power-sharing and partnership. we, the kurds, are not to be blamed for the failure in baghdad. why did it happen? it happened for a number of reasons. challenges, weal have security challenges, and we have economic challenges. these are the main three challenges we face today. would like the international community to appreciate the situation we are in, whether we

talk about kurdistan alone or iraq as a whole. we have to continue on the two tracks. so that we will not lose whatever we have achieved so far. to strengthen it, consolidated. -- consolidate it. if we were able to help the rest of iraq to be like kurdistan, it depends on their cooperation. thehe same time, we want international community to view kurdistan for what it stands for. we do not want to pay a price for the failure of baghdad. about baghdadking and the political process, the international community has to recognize that there has been a big change in iraq. area is veryl different from the pre-mosul

iraq. security -- the islamic challengehe economic -- the islamic state, the economic challenge -- all of the refugees. the federal government did not paid the budget -- pay the budget of the kurdistan region. it is the commitment to provide adget for the krg, which is recognized, legitimate government for the people of kurdistan. could this participation in the political process be conditional? it has to be a might of the change that has taken place. also for us, we do not want to go back to the same stories of 10 years ago.

either we would be respected for who we are, because iraq is made up of two nationalities and then minorities. or we have to revisit the nature of the relationships that exist. call upon the united states, the international community, the neighboring countries to look at kurdistan and our government in the last decade or two. we have proven to everyone that we are effective for stability. we have proven that in spite of all of the challenges we have had internally and externally, we succeeded in introducing a new democratic experience. the last cabinet that was formed recently is a broad-based cabinet in kurdistan region that we were expecting there would be challenges. that is why we have waited

longer than expected to be united. next to the that, we have formed a kurdish negotiation team, so that we are in baghdad -- when we are in baghdad, we will speak unitedly. what we want to see is we do not want to go back to a failed experience, and experience that has failed. we don't want to go back to unfulfilled promises. iraq has a constitution. it was a constitution the majority of the people in a rack for, but unfortunately it was not implemented. shall we go back and see that nonimplementation of the constitution? theseo want to say changes require a new track from

the international community. baghdad.focusing on baghdad has to be seen equally. today, there's public opinion encourages stan -- in kurdistan. they have not seen good intentions from baghdad. it's not only the kurdish leadership that has to be satisfied, as the curtis public -- the kurdish public opinion has to be satisfied. so far they have not seen that baghdad. victory, iraqi is an artificial state. it was a state put together to keep the balance between the shiites and sunnis. anything built on the foundation will not survive. voluntary, unless it is through an understanding of the community. since the establishment of the iraqi state, we have never felt we are partners in this country. we have never been treated as

partners. the international community has to understand that we as kurds have paid a huge price in the past. time has come for the kurdish identity to be respected. theave not gone beyond what limits of the constitution asked for, but we wanted for our characters to be respected so we can focus on rebuilding the kurdistan region, we have inherited 4500 villages destroyed by saddam hussein's regime. we expected baghdad would come forward to help us rebuild. in a chemicallled gassing. we were expecting the federal government come forward to compensate them. in a82,000 people lost notorious operation. we were expect inc. baghdad would come forward.

these have not happened. indeed, we've seen the iraqi army move against kurdish people. that was a true reminder baghdad has not changed. history shapes our policies. it is a feeling of uncertainty we have in iraq that we would like the international community to understand. we had a tense relationship with turkey, but we were hopeful and optimistic that we would be able , given the opportunity to communicate our message, that we would be able to establish a good relationship. to say thatpleased today we have a good relationship with turkey. we are optimistic about the future of this relationship and we see them as long-term and strategic. and they needed interaction. we just needed a platform to communicate the message.

good relationsve with our other neighbor, iran, and we have been able to reach out to arab countries, with jordan, kuwait and other countries and we enjoy very good relations all stop today, we have 31 diplomatic representation a treated to kurdistan. toe of them are the common members of the security council and five are from arab countries. others from europe, the united states and others will stop we do not want the progress to be put on hold. done everything we could to help the process in iraq, but at the same time we want to be helped so we continue building our democratic institution, the rule of law, the empowerment of women created by the civil society institution, etc..

we do not want to live isolated from the rest of the world. we have given enough to baghdad. we have contributed positively. iraqi in terms of the political process. what we want to see is a new foundation, if iraq were to succeed, there has to be a new foundation, a new basis of this relationship. we cannot go back to pre-june 9, but certainly how we have aspirations. we want to have more economic autonomy, we want to have more political autonomy because this is the least we can do. as a people, we have the right to self-determination, but that does not stop where we have to live under the mercy of baghdad for baghdad to decide you have

to do this and you have to do that. it is over that time. in baghdad, we are ready to be good harder's to build a new and better iraq, but also to have a better kurdistan to enjoy good relations with the international community. with that, i would welcome any questions. thank you. [applause] >> thank you both very much. i'm going to be looking for questions. i see a few people have expressed a lot of interest. i'm going to take the prerogative of the chair and ask the first question which picks up on a very interesting and important comment made about the new border between the kurdistan region and the islamic state, especially in your newly expanded territory. you've got a border of over 1000 kilometers, not with iraq but a

new islamic state, terrorist state, as you put it. i want to ask you what in your view should the the next steps in defending yourself against that threat and confronting or defeating, if possible, this threat from the islamic state and what do you see as the desirable and realistic american role? thank you. real, and it'ss not only a threat against kurdistan. , it'sa threat to baghdad a threat to turkey because it's on the border with turkey, and they are trying to reach the border of the ran to be a threat to iran. in the statement which has been given by their leader yesterday, it is obvious they are threatening everybody.

so what can we do? we, the kurds, as i said, we try to protect our area. but of course this is not enough. if this threat is to stay, we need international cooperation from neighboring countries, but also help and support from the united states. because it is a threat to all of us. not just a threat to the territory, but threat to the every and interests, to individual and every group. , not a threat to others just people who belong to the islamic state. whenay before yesterday, irs released a statement, it divided the world into 2 -- a world of islam and the world of war, nonbelievers. world that belongs

to him is his territory. war, that means they will start with their neighbors and we are on the other side. turkey is on the north and baghdad south, and they are trying to reach iran. on the other side, they've got syria and jordan. in the first place, they are a threat to us but better they would be a threat to everybody. when we talk about this threat, we are realistic. we need help and the united states can help us. we've got our forces. we do not need united states forces to be there, but we need equipment. they have the most sophisticated weapons in their hands and they are all american weapons. they are all american weapons that had been given to the iraqi

army and now they are in the hands of terrorists. this is another new reality. army is very weak or does not exist. theyurds are there, but can defend their territory but they cannot go to other -- they cannot liberate other areas. if we want to liberate those areas, we need international cooperation, helping the kurds to strengthen their military power, giving the kurds equipment, giving them weapons, but also allowing them to sell we can havecause our money, we are not receiving money from baghdad anymore, since january, baghdad is not sending even the budget for the

employees of the government. we need financial resources. we must take care of 7 million people. how can we do that without having financial resources? we are not asking others to pay us money, we are asking others especially in the united states, to help us because they're putting some pressure on various governments so that our oil will not be sold on the international oil market. that is all. we believe in our cause. we can find those people because we have forces, because we are defending our country. help, need support and especially from the united states. thank you.

>> i want to recognize our executive director. >> gentlemen, thank you. i don't want to cause differences between the two of you, but my ear heard something very interesting. to principled policies will stop we are going to stay in baghdad and we are going to build our nation and kurdistan. then we heard staying in baghdad is conditional. you, whatuld ask exactly triggers the end of that principle? or to put it differently, what triggers independents, a road neither of you use in your opening remarks? >> it may be a generational change. [laughter]

>> we believe our generation and we believe in democracy. we allow other generations to think a different way. but we are not on different paths. it is the same. be a baghdad which believes in these values. iraqst build a democratic for a democratic system. if they don't believe in it and until now they did not do that, is it possible for them to do that? when my colleague is talking about the conditions, a person as have prime minister and remove him and bring somebody else, it is about the culture, the ideology

and the system they believe in. if we are not going in the direction of restructuring iraqi toward democracy, that we cannot be part of that system. time, the second part, we mention we were talking about self-determination, the right of self-determination, and when we are talking about that right, our people will decide which kind of rights they will exercise. we are talking about having a referendum. i don't know when. my representative will go to the kurdish parliament tomorrow and of course we're going to ask our people what do they want. willdoesn't mean we implement a result that will threaten them directly.

when are you going to implement let's say the result of the referendum? that depends on the situation in the process in baghdad. that depends on the negotiation with other countries, but we are heading toward a different direction. the kurdish people have the right of self-determination and one day we will implement that right according to the desire of our people. now, i havet michael gordon and barbara slaton. i will get to that in just a moment.

>> i'm going to ask a question very similar to robs, but let me pursue it a bit more deeply. what are the specific things you have to have in the way of relative payments or independence, autonomy, whatever you want to call it from baghdad in order to stay -- what do you think you could sell to the people of kurdistan to allow you to stay inside iraq? where are the red lines that would force you out? >> we are not going back to the old situation. going back before the ninth of june, that is impossible. to have aficult common path with baghdad. everything,tting

they were not implementing the constitution. they were violating the constitution. peace, we cannot go back. state, is the islamic between us and i dad, we cannot reach baghdad. we don't have a border anymore. when they are coming nowadays, they are flying. it is as if we are going to another country. stay,hdad wants us to the right ofognize self-determination of the kurds. the kurds can have their own independent country. have an we will democratic government in baghdad

and they can have their territory, we can combine between two states. having said that, i'm talking us as theyte between are in the same state. of course, we must cooperate. having a third state between us and a state which threatens everything, we cannot live easily. it would be a nightmare having as a neighbor next to you, and you don't feel secure. cooperate. givere we going to definition to this relationship? that's why we are talking about to pass.

we can negotiate with baghdad about the future at the end and about kurdistan, if we can cooperate, that is good, if not, that means we can choose two different paths will stop >> we gassing baghdad. the way they are treating us, it was as if we are guessing baghdad but we are more -- we are for economic and sovereign power. this is the least our people can expect. >> michael gordon? >> i would like to ask you to clarify the point you just made. if kurdistan is to

remain part of a new iraq, there needs to be a new iraqi that acknowledges the new facts on the ground. fact on theraphic ground, are they negotiable or not negotiable for kurdistan? your cook and the disputed territories they have now moved into our forever to be part of on the negotiating table if you are iraqi partners, and that has to be recognized if you are to remain part of iraq or would you negotiate a territory? the point there needs to be a new prime minister. early part of the process is to pick a new prime minister, but did you mean to say you are asked was really ruling out nouri al-maliki as the potential prime minister for a third term? cook -- as farrk as kirk cook another areas

covered in article 140 from the constitution of iraq, the same implementationt , a legal process in this area, it's the duty of the iraqi government. the iraqi government didn't do that will stop date did not implement that article, so we cannot implement that article. how are we going to implement that article now that the territories under the control of the kurdish? i think it's the right of the population to vote, so in that referendum, they can decide their future and we made it clear the other day that when we have a referendum in kurdistan, it will be about something else, the referendum and this piece of territory which has been covered by the constitution, we can have

a referendum about their future and their relationship with kurdistan. so then the people will decide. it's not about negotiation with baghdad. it is about the roles and desires of the people in kirk the futures of these areas will be decided. as well as prime minister. it is not only me. i will go to the parliament and i will say i'm sorry. so i will leave but he does not a failurethat it was of management. wantis is news do not durian maliki. the kurds do not want durian butki as prime minister,

the main two political parties do not wantia, they nouri al-maliki as prime minister. , so we he is finished must wait for another one to be in charge. >> thank you. barbara slaton, appear in the middle. and then dennis, in the back. tank you so much. good to see you back here again. barzani saidsident there would be a referendum on independence, but he did not say when. said there will be a referendum but he did not say about what, he did not say which question. there will be parliament to discuss these matters. >> you have it in talking about

independence for a long time, certainly as long as i've done both of you gentlemen. are you getting a more receptive response from the obama as the -- obama administration for the idea of not just more autonomy but independence? are they telling you you can have more autonomy, but we don't want you to break away entirely viewiraq? is it the same one hears from the turks and iranians? they have a considerable kurdish population and it would seem many people can accept more power and sovereignty but not independence .or kurdistan can you have de facto independence without splitting from her rack and is the u.s. government ok with that? the right to self-determination and

independence is a given right. but the realities on the ground and the international circumstances and the regional powers are to be blamed. we have accepted that how about we want to live in peace and partnership. that was rejected. itfacto independence, we had from 1991 until 2003. we had our own trade. different from the rest of her rack. there was an opportunity to secure a better future. we were in the front to support the liberation of united states. that thered publicly

is an opportunity for iraq to build a democracy for everyone. stand benefit from that but the rest of the rack did not. states, bethe united it france, united states, as the neighboring countries, there is more and more understanding of the kurdish decision. like there is no rejection. there is more understanding but the kurdish leader step -- kurdish leadership does not rush to a conclusion and does not jump over the situation. we want to secure a better future for her to stand and we will do everything we can for understanding and do it without the support of the neighboring countries. without the support of some of the main powers in the world, we

cannot have it survive. even if it goes down the road to independence, we want international recognition. we do not want our people to suffer more. we are trying to build the momentum and solidarity of support. everything in order to help the allow the kurds to be blamed and they should not be allowed to late part of the country. even if we decide to be independent, we will stay as neighbors to her rack. that's why we want to be an understanding neighbor as well. >> i want to follow up and be a little more precise. now, the administration has been rather cool to the idea of you selling your oil and

emphasizing the importance of maintaining the central government and its power. are you hearing a different message this time now that you are here? are you seeing an administration more receptive to the two paths you have laid out? let me ask one other question as long as i have the microphone. have -- do you see all curative candidates for a prime minister who might look at the kurds as being something other than a guest when they come to baghdad? >> first, we are not here to speak on behalf of the american administration. the secretary of state was in a week ago in baghdad.

everybody knows there's a new reality in iraq. will not reflect the new reality. so there is a movement to understand the new reality. in our discussion here in washington, we understand they andready to listen understand what is going on exactly. to listen to opinion about not only what is going on now, but the rest be done and of the country. we are still in discussion with them. that the feeling

understanding here is different. the visits we had to washington in the past, now it is different. but it is up to them to announce ,hat and within a short time various pieces of policy as far as dealing with baghdad. the whole area has been changed. it will continue. one, the kurdish people is dealing with this crisis, but at the same time, this crisis is offering

opportunities, which is not against the law, which is not against the constitution but also not against the right of the kurds. this opportunity for the kurds is important and we are trying to deal with that and trying to convince others, including the united states that there must be a new policy and depending on , dealingiraq policy only with baghdad i think, it is not the right policy. is eras baghdad, there be a, eve got another state. work to deal must with the new state.

>> could the recognition of this for the kurds to have a better future, there has been a change feltinking, so we have that from other members of the international community. it is not about the changing of personality. we have other parties in baghdad. behind closed doors, they tell us you have the right to receive your budget but we don't want that to be behind closed doors. public that to be in the in places like this to put pressure on baghdad. we would like the international community and united nations to put pressure on baghdad to provide the budget in a timely manner. therefore, there has been a change. themonths ago, a month ago, reality on the ground on june 9, the international community has

to adapt to that change. you.ank palestinian journalist and i had the honor of meeting both in and dad and my question follows on the same feed. it rack, for all practical purpose, there is a de facto partition today. what kind of mechanism could you employ to have a cream -- have a clean break? alleviate what ever fears the city state might have in terms of being oil or or in exchange for whatever? how do you see this happening? >> the de facto partition where is -- where iraq is divided, that is part of the reality we are talking about.

how are we going to deal with this effective partition? are we going to be united again? who is going to be united again? to unite iraqi again, that means you must wage a war and clean the area from terrorists. that's a good target, but who is going to do that? we do not have an iraqi army or we don't have an army which can fight now. the majority of the army units have collapsed. ready toited states send troops to iraq again? i guess the answer is no. to attack this neighboring state so we can be liberated or that the people there can be liberated?

i guess not because as we know, turkey supported the opposition in syria for the last three years. didthe turkish government not decide to send his army to syria. i don't think the turkish army liberate modal or any other areas. not nato ready to do that? i don't think so. what about the iranians? are they ready to send their army to sunni areas to liberate cities? i don't think so. i think they are ready to defend baghdad. but further than that, i don't think the iranians will do that. we, the kurds, can we do that? we can defend our area, but we cannot go to deep in arab areas

and fight there. it will be difficult for us. this is the reality. the main question for many of us how will this islamic state be and who is going to fight? if we are not going to fight together,, all of us then it will be stronger and it will reach many other places. we -- that is why we are saying there is a new reality and it needs new policy and need a new coordination on security, military and economic.

we must deal with that until we finish this job will stop we cannot work without a united iraq, to be honest. we can talk about a good relationship between era be a and baghdad. it is in our interest to have a good relationship and it is in baghdad -- interest to have a good relationship with era be a -- with arabia. but in our contact with the outside world, so we can protect ourselves and for tech the area around baghdad, then to build this will, otherwise stay there and iraq will be divided. of other bases of self are titian, not on the basis of self agreement, but on

the basis of security lines. >> trudy rubin from the "philadelphia inquirer." in talking about who is going to fight this new state, could you tell us whether you think it's possible to turn sunni tribes against isys and if so, would that be enough to make the difference, and where do the bath us to fit into this mix? ts fitre do the baathis in. do you want the u.s. to give you, the kurds, weapons to fight? and lastly, a ran. this is a threat to iran. do you believe at this point

that a ran want a new structure still a money is still clinging to the current structure andriy al-maliki? >> good question. like iraq, many countries in one. this awaking movement or tribe which has been established in 2007 -- 2005.nd as far as ease tribes, many of ,hem now are either frightened they joined isys or are supporting isys. -- they joined isis, thousands

of people are leaving the area. there must be pressure from both .ides that means there must be resistance. resistance against terrorist groups, but who is going to movements forng all of those people who are engaged, that was not a success story. we know what happened and we know why it happened, we know who paid. who is going to pay? the tribal leader who was , he coulderrorists depend on the american army. being paid, but now, depending on who? tribes will be able to

organize or reorganize themselves so they can create a resistance in these areas. who is going to support them? that means military, financially , that means leading them, it means sometimes getting them as a refugee in your area. who is going to do that? many tribal leaders now, there are refugees in kurdistan. , but most of them are representing the sunni community in the parliament. they are in arabia or they are in oman. they cannot go back to their own area. to create the resistance is difficult, but that does not mean in this new state there are not people who are not against them. they don't have power.

we analyze the political organizations which are working with isis, we see they all have islamist backgrounds. we are talking about al qaeda, all of al qaeda strike just all of al qaeda structure. andre talking about isis units that are mixed baathists and islamists. we are talking about mujahedin units will stop we are talking about revolution your -- revolution units. thd we are talking about baa party. these are the organizations active in this area. but gradually, from the ninth of june until now, the information we receive is that these people

are almost controlling the field. they are stronger because they've got the weapons. they've got the organizations. their ideology is more clear than others. they've got money, they've got training, and they've got leadership. whereas the other side, there is lack of leadership. gradually it's going to be the biggest organizations and the others will follow. from within, it will be difficult to destroy this state from within. pressure from be outside, then there is a possibility that some of these organizations which i mentioned, they will be in conflict with is is, and there will be fights among themselves. but that is a big if. if there would be pressure from

the outside or an attack or an army from the outside, if there is a strong support from outside. it is difficult. it is not easy. --the question of weapons [inaudible] the u.s. weapons, we don't know about that. we are talking about fighting. the u.s. weapons are now in the hands of terrorists, unfortunately, instead of being in the hands of friends will us, not only u.s. able here, but we must rethink about these things. giving weapons to everybody and then at the end and up with the terrorists, that is a disaster. if those terrorist groups that were there as they were before the ninth of june, it was easier

to fight them. but after the ninth of june, they became a large army with the most sophisticated weapons they got from the iraqi army. so to fight them, they need weapons, of course. what do you want from me? him.u guys know >> i'm talking about iraq. we are not talking about individual. iran is a neighboring country. we respect our relationship with iran and want to act in the relationship with iran but it also has interests in iraq. countries, they have interests in iraq. the iranian interest is also to fight those terrorist groups because it's not only a threat

for their national security, for the iranians, it's an ideology. differentepending on theory and different interpretation of islam. it is a threat for us and a threat for baghdad, a threat for turkey and a threat for iran. that is why i think at the end, if we can work together, all of us, plus support and help from the united states, then we can defeat this new phenomenon, political phenomenon which is a nightmare for all of us. there has to be progress on the political track. in order for the sunnis to vote against that. so there is some hope that they would have a better future that they would not do it because it is part of the shia-sunni power struggle. they would like to have defensive weapons to protect people.

we don't have the weapons to be on the offensive. even fighting outside the kurdistan area, this is not something welcome by our people --the leadership will stop or the leadership. the responsibility of those who failed to protect them and second, about the interference of the neighbors, if the united in, theoes not come door is open for these neighbors to step in and interfere. ware is a lot of proxy going on and a lot of contradicting interests there. therefore, either we have a win win situation for those who have interest in this or it will be a zero-sum game, which would not the in the interests of anyone. >> i'm going to have to make this last question. i apologize to other people, but our guests have another appointment coming up are you soon. can we have one more question here and we will bid you a fond

farewell. >> like others, i would like to thank both of you for your hospitality. i want to ask first, your judgment of the vulnerability of baghdad itself at this point to further advances by the islamic state. second, i take from your remarks that, in response to the last question or several of the most recent questions, you post the question of whether the islamic state will be durable. it seems from what you say that you expect it to be fairly not the whether or liph is in new ca

charge. if it's going to remain on the scene for quite some time, do you think it will be therefore necessary for there to be a serious and long-term relationship between the kurdish regional government and the united states forces? out, the question is who is going to address a threat this large. >> baghdad is under threat. think, i believe that the target of islamic state is to reach baghdad. they are not so far away from some areas, especially south of .aghdad

but they are there and one thing ,e must not forget, in the past we have seen terrorist attacks inside baghdad. 10 attacks in a day. that means they are also in outside.not everyone is still under threat. there are some areas in baghdad which belong to their targets. people in baghdad and the government, they are people inped and baghdad have a mind to defend baghdad. as far as this state, it will be

a threat for a long time for all of us. we must get together as soon as possible because not to allow it -- otherwise it would be a real threat for the whole area. we question for us is are going to deal with this reality and accept it or are we going to reject this reality. this is not a reality that you can negotiate. this is not a riyadh he you can live with. this is a rheology that will kill you. it is dangerous. it needs cooperation. one of the reasons we are here trying to talk about this is this -- is dangerous for all of us. targetingy are more , today they are not

attacking the kurds, but tomorrow they will do that. today they have not reached the iranian border, but tomorrow they will reach the iranian border. >> we are for long-term engagement with the united eight and we have made it clear we are against terrorism and want to fight terrorism because now this is a threat and we want them to be there to provide stability and security in the long term. >> on that very sobering note, i want to say thank you very much. thank all of you and thank our guests very much for this very important discussion. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> coming up tonight during prime time on c-span, a look at the legal marijuana industry and how business and industry is looking to increase its recreational use around the country. recently, denver hosted the first major business conference on the business of cannabis. here's a look. >> money is one of these things that can galvanize people. if you are here, mainly for

money, that's great. but a lot of people come to this because of the opportunity, the economic opportunity, but that is not what keeps him. what keeps them are the people, the passion, the change we are making, the pioneering spirit we are building. this is different -- your businesses are not like other businesses will stop i think it's going to be an interesting ride as we look at our different motivations for being involved in this sector. if you want something done in this world, you have to figure out how to make it profitable. -- hippies keep being right they are right about noble

energy, write about organic foods, write about cannabis will renewableook at energy and organic foods, these are movements that started because people cared about something. they cared about the environment and wanted to use renewables stop they care about the health of farms and the lands and what we put in our bodies. small without really an activist sort of flavor, but once they figured out how to have laughable business models around those ideas, boom. now organic foods are everywhere, renewable energy is growing by leaps and leaps and leaps and bounds. and i think that is what the cannabis industry is doing for freedom. >> you can watch the entire summit on the growing business of marijuana tonight on c-span

starting at 8:00 eastern. , book tv looks at nuclear power. book, "then on his age of radiance." and a book about the fukushima and japan nuclear disaster. that's book tv in prime time tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. the supreme court handed down several key decisions as week prior to the end of the term. on our facebook page, we are asking of your opinion on the accord. stephanie wright, out of touch with the american people. i've seen many interviews with the court justices. they do not watch tv, they do onlyt out, and they are speaking to the differently groups. judy says these people are supposed to be apolitical.

>> we would like to hear your thoughts will stop go to facebook.com/c-span to offer your comments. >> remind your children in this bicentennial year, one we are the first generation of americans who have experienced attacks on the continental united states, we are the first iteration of americans to have felt what it was like to have our number with buildings attacked, remind your children that freedom is not free and our country's greatness is found in one another. that is what the star-spangled banner is about will stop that is what this commemoration year is about, to tell that story and lift every voice and sing. three-day fourth of july weekend starts friday on american history tv, including th anniversary of "the onr-spangled banner."

saturday, a talk about radiation experiments conducted from world war ii through the cold war. theon sunday, it preview of manuscript on george h.w. bush and the peaceful end to the cold war. drones takercial your picture, mac construction sites, and are on the outside of buildings. smartphone technology is making possible smaller drones. and drone robot builders, software developers and one of the best thrown photographers discuss the future of this technology. from earlier in june, this is just under 90 minutes. [applause]

>> just a few words to kick off. drones.s is on small we will talk about consumer -- i think we can recognize this is an area changing by the a with just amazing potential. getting started, just look at some of the things we have seen from drone cameras just this year. world's remarkable footage of the demonstrations in thailand and the ukraine, and in a completely different realm, it has able -- enabled us to watch spacex hoss ross hopper rocket taking off and landing. we have seen amazon showing their vision for how packages might be delivered in the future, and as you've seen on screens over dinner, remarkable footage of the world around us showing us unique ways to view the world will stop and of course, you've all just experienced, likely for most of you in the audience, your first

droney. they are likely to be very old news -- taken by eric, one of the best drone photographers. we're just getting started on the drone journey. we have amazing power here, so let's get going. , -- inchill fetching church hill >> i am chris anderson, the ceo of 3d robotics. i was the editor of wired magazine for more than a decade. i went from the editor of the magazine to the ceo of an aerospace company. let's say it -- back in the immediate days i didn't have to run my own factory and now i do. >> my name is eric cheng, i am the director of aerial i